A 1% swing from R to D and the reverse is true. Our system exaggerates close results as a bunch of battleground states move together. And even on the electoral front, this wasn’t a big victory. Biden got 306 electoral votes in 2020, Trump got 312. In 2008, Obama won 365-173. That was a massive victory.
Trump is genuinely popular now
This doesn’t affect your point, but I just want to point out that he’s NOT genuinely popular right now. He’s still got a terrible approval rating. He’s starting at somewhere around 47 approve, 48 disapprove. Biden was 53-30. And this is his honeymoon, he was at a similar level at the start of his first term.
This was more of a rejection of Biden/status quo than people coming around to actually like Trump.
Yeah, in 2016 it was so close any singular failing could have been the one that turned a win to a loss, but after this last one it’s multiple.
And they all sort of reinforce themselves. Seeing Democrats abandon one political principle and then seeing them being weak on one that’s close to home will make you less willing to accept it’s just a messaging choice. And all of that on top of the general economic malaise and lack of punishment for bad people in positions of power and something you might have let go becomes the final straw.
Obama was amazingly effective at the ballot box, but to the established Democratic power structure he was dangerous. Luckily for them he merged himself into their structure rather than maintaining his separate power base and taking on individual in-party resistors like Trump has, but it was a warning about what could happen and they took that lesson to heart. They do not want anything resembling another Obama.
Maybe you shouldn’t take four years to investigate something. It literally started during Trump’s administration and went through an entire presidency. What more did they need to know?
While he could be telling the truth and the negative margins could be a result of the actual economics of healthcare and payment (rather than profit-taking shenanigans), the quoted guy there is an executive from a lobbying group.
Like I can’t even think of the great positive accomplishment that would be tarnished by the end of his presidency. As a comparison, Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually did some important and positive things before her selfishness destroyed her legacy. What was Biden’s greatest hit? Maybe being slightly less anti-gay than the conservative wing of the Democratic party during Obama’s term? Nothing during his presidency seems to rise to the level of a historic accomplishment. His legislative career was mostly bad.
It’s not like this is the story of a great man who through no fault of his own ends up with a tarnished reputation. He was never all that good and his tarnished reputation is a direct result of his own choices and actions.
They’re not failing (at least primarily) because of emergency care. There have been a series of profit-taking actions and frauds by the various owners.
How was this not front and center in the article? I kept waiting to read about stock buybacks or really anything about why the hospitals were so in debt when it’s a relatively simple situation of vulture capitalism.
Guy Fawkes was a visionary.
But that’s him and his company! 😯
a) A soft stance against genocide is not a very good stance on genocide.
b) Biden also said he was against genocide. His position is that all the starvation, collective punishment, and attacks against civilian infrastructure just weren’t genocide so nothing much needed to be done. She said she didn’t disagree with anything he had done.
And just to jump to the next step of this conversation, yes, Trump was vocally worse and while it’s hard to imagine being much worse than what Biden has done, I think he has the potential to figure out a way. A sober and objective and rational game theorist should choose to vote for Harris.
But that’s not how voters work. “We’re 98% bad, but he’ll be 100%” isn’t a message to keep your coalition together. Emotional voters will cut off their nose to spite their face and that’s a fundamental aspect of how politics works that can’t be ignored or dismissed because they should do something else.
Sweet, I can’t wait for our first election to not be influenced by dumb voters. When’s that going to happen? I guess we should just keep losing until then.
There’s a key distinction between the number of Biden voters who voted for Harris and the relative vote totals. Some of Harris’s voters didn’t (or couldn’t) vote for Biden. First time voters or Trump-Harris voters wouldn’t be Biden voters, so the number of her Biden voters would be lower than her total number of votes.
They link to a source that shows if Kamala had been more conservative in these areas, she would’ve had more support:
Immigration Fossil fuels Ukraine (withdrawing support)
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Is this just a desperate grasp for some result to boost centrism in general?
Maybe MOST importantly is that the issues the polled on, in order of importance to voters, shows Gaza ranks LAST in importance.
For the “Biden to Harris” voters. Of course it’s low importance to them (3%). That’s a key difference between those who stayed and those who didn’t. Which validates the whole point that it wouldn’t lose many votes. Few Harris voters cared about it, but the companion poll shows that those who didn’t vote for her did care.
Even the source they linked is wrong: “New Poll Shows Gaza Was #1 Issue For Biden 2020 Voters Who Did Not Vote For Harris”
Then the actual data disproves this. Neither for Biden voters who switched or Biden voters who backed Harris, it was not the top.
There’s literally that exact question. Which is the one being referenced in the articles with specific percentages where Gaza was at the top.
“Which one of the following issues was MOST important in deciding your [vote for presidential candidate/decision to not to vote for president]?”
Also, the poll is exclusive to swing states.
Ok? So? The other states literally don’t matter.
That was for the “Biden voters in swing states” poll, so a much smaller population than most polls. Most nationwide political polls of the general public were in the 1,000-1,500 range for a 2-3 point margin of error. Polls with larger sizes were likely to also get useful crosstabs.
MOE for this poll was +/-4.9%, which is high, but not “this is meaningless trash, what even is statistics?!?”, especially when the headline numbers are just general sentiment rather than a head to head. In the worst case if “Gaza” was 24 and “the economy” was 29, it’s not a very large difference in the finding.
I believe there are only two articles, which are presumably just sourcing from an IMEU press release for their poll.
It’s not an outbreak of “violence”, it’s an outbreak of terrorism.